Does the Media have too much political power in Britain?

by na007 (student)

186064

The media industry in the UK is by far one of the most influential sectors known as a 'means of communication' for people in Britain. Mass Media can now ultimately control what people see and think. Examples date back to the 20th century where propaganda was recognised as an issue during the second world war and most recently used for political purposes for elections and ect. Since then, Mass Media has been heavily criticized as being the largest industry of scrutiny in the Political radar, and have inevitably become a watchdog of Politics. Many would judge that the 21st century has victimised political decisions through media revolution. The media has grown to publicise, and in most events criticise, many political events that occur on a daily basis. It has been profoundly criticized further for seeking "power, and power without responsibility" (R.Negrine, 1989, 77) through scrutinizing those with political power. The question then arises about the legitimacy of the stories that are reported and how influential they are in moulding an individual's opinion; do the media hold too much political power in Britain?

Tony Blair delivered a speech to a meeting of journalists at Reuters on 12 June 2007, describing the contemporary media as a "feral beast" which tears "people and reputations to bits", the effect of this is proof of how the media is indeed is too powerful in the personal and political careers of politicians. Tony Blair was immensely scrutinised by the Mass Media during the Iraq war, he was an example of how the Media have successfully ruined careers of politicians through press scandal, however in many cases they have not been able to influence government decisions such as the recent rise in university fees nor were they able to influence the empire free trade policy during Beaverbrook's government, we can see here how the media have short term affects on politics and not long term affects. The expenses scandal, what was regarded by Gordon Brown as "the biggest parliamentary scandal for two centuries" (D. Wring, R. Mortimore, S. Atkinson, 2011, p.241) this became viral because the Media. The Media outrage pressured many MP's such as cabinet minister at the time Jaqui Smith and David Laws who was the to resign. Shortly after the expenses scandal, another Media cry was when Gordon Brown referred to a voter in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman" during the 2010 election campaign his comments revealed a lot about his personality, his state of mind and its "emblematic significance for labours faltering campaign" (D. Wring, R. Mortimore, S. Atkinson, 2011, p.296), the Media here were finally given a podium to ruin Brown's political career because they had the political influence to do so.

Since the build up of image has created a recent "presidential" style of governing amongst British prime ministers, the full time staff of Spin Doctors build the roles of these Prime Ministers as presidents because it is central in showing strong characteristics and strong leadership skills. "Political actors pursue own goals and frequently dominate the media, audience no active role in media... careful packaging of Mrs Thatcher by Gordon Reece from mid 1970s onwards was designed to create a different image of her in public" (1989), this is how spin doctors carefully create relationships with journalists in order to build the careers of politicians, this job is vital because it means one must present a different image of themselves to different papers, suffice to this, you must "bargain" and "framework" to attract different audiences, for example, readers of the Sun are very different in views and social class to that of Guardian or Times. To continue, "Margaret Thatcher expected to use every platform available to her as a 'bully pulpit' from which to expound her convictions. With the control of the new labour organization in his hands and a much enlarge staff in number 10, Tony Blair expects MP's and party worker to do what he expects'" (R.Rose, 2001, p.25), even so David Cameron is more popular than his party, what all three of these Prime Ministers have in common is using the Media as a tool to create an imagine in the public, this allows them to dictate the Media by showing party unity and loyalty in their favour to look good, it also shows how important the Media is to contemporary politics.

The party is no longer as important as it was decades ago, hence why the Prime Ministerial televised debates in 2010 entailed the new leaders as being direct and creating a rapport with the modern day viewer. The live debates exposed "the deficiencies of the new media" (chadwick 2010: 17), furthermore it also showed the "ideological converge between main parties, lack of substantive policy debate between parties' (D.Wring, R. Mortimore, S. Atkinson, 2011, p.270), this leads to the point that there is no actual division between parties recently, as parties are so similar in policies, their ideologies have become centralised as ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Since, "the Falklands visit is a telling example of a politician using the media successfully to build an image and secure the most flattering coverage; it is also vignette of "official information" at work. Thirty years before, no such intensive manipulation was attempted" (M. Cockerell , P. Hennessy, D. Walker 1984, p.119). Rather, this here is a clear example of the way that the celebrity status and role of politicians has emerged in recent years. Decades ago Media was not as influential as it is today because of the rise of technology , the problem with this was the example of Falklands 1982, in this case the media were restricted from access of reporting, a case which is not as common as it is now. Politicians have realised how important the media is to gain public support, which has led to the failure of actual primary campaigning such as canvassing. Media is indeed extremely powerful in covering up stories on behalf of the government , it is apparent "whether these attempts at control have been successful or not, in many ways, irrelevant. The central point is that by controlling the moving pictures of dissent, governments believe that they can not only minimize the dissent itself but also completely remove the major source of criticism" (R. Negrine, 1989, p.11), through controlling or restricting the Media democracy is also threatened s a clear picture is not presented', nor is the media painting a good image of politics, especially "those without power or legitimacy lack the resources necessary to capture the Mass Media. The planning and organization required to lead the Mass M edia and so define the 'real' issues and their meaning are outside the scope of "powerless" individuals. Members of the general public usually only respond and react to Media content: they are rarely in control of media work. In such was political actors, aided and abetted by the mass media, help construct images of reality" (R.Negrine 1989, p.13), this point shows that the political use of Media is confined to only those in a position of power and it is not democratic, what we must understand is that what the media impose in distribution could be either a way to distort the conscious or simply for stories in order to make profit and what can be believable.

Following this, the Media have always been limited in their powers till this day. Most recently CNN reporter, Dana Bash interviewed a US solider who spoke on his opinion on the U.S foreign intervention, once the solider was opposing intervention in places such as Iran and Syria, he went deeper in to the interview, this is when the live interview was immediately cut off, this is a recent case of Media censorship. Prior to this event, the government have the power to introducing secrecy acts such as "The 1911 Act, sill the core of the secrecy statutes, dealt not only with espionage but with the publication of information. Its section 2 imposed sentences on those guilty of communicating “prohibited” information. Its section 9 authorised the police to search editorial offices and to seize papers or anything” (M. Cockerell , P. Hennessy and D. Walker, 1984, p.17), an example to back this up would be in 1986 when Duncan Campbell of the BBC discovered the government's plans to build a satellite called the 'GCHQ' which enabled the government to eavesdrop on the Soviet Union. He further created a Panorama investigation on it, Thatcher government immediately demanded police to raid the offices and confiscate every tape which was classed as evidence to frame the government. In many ways can we call "democracy a sham" because "the British people are governed by a system which does all it can to deny them the facts. A half-informed nation cannot take proper decisions about taxing and spending" (M. Cockerell , P. Hennessy and D. Walker, 1984, p.8), the government go too far in preventing the people from knowing the truth, the element of truth in the government has now gone through the immense use of censorship, this threatens democracy. People this way resent politicians and distant themselves from reading news as they are aware that the truth is never told. If the Media is a sort of voice of the public and this is also restricted then there is actually no real democracy.

The public are no longer interested in politics, the expenses scandal surprisingly, according to polls did not affect the 2010 elections because of the determination of the floating voter. This illustrates how floating votes are determined by Media impact as they vote in the case of scandal or popularity during the time. Media cannot uphold a view without public opinion, otherwise the stories will not sell, moreover the Media is a profit seeking business that compete with one another, this means they need sales to survive, therefore newspapers are also now centralised in their views, public opinion opposed the Iraq war, hence why all newspapers opposed the Iraq War. A popular way to combat the news is through social networking sites as these sites "has great immediacy... It forces people to cut right to the chase. It is fantastic journalistic tool... were in an environment now where it is all about the instant gratification" (D. Wring, R. Mortimore, S. Atkinson, 2011, p.268). The internet is the largest consumption of news now, one can assume that headlines and pop ups during a quick surf on the internet summarise people's view on politics, it shows how people are less educated and have a lack of interest in politics.

Historically, "Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels said that if a lie were repeated publicly a hundred times, it would become a truth" (Business standard, 2005), and the Media here can do this. The influence of the government on Media has not only deteriorated democracy but it also blurs a humans civil rights. The Media can be criticised because of the government's advantage to use propaganda through the Mass Media. Stories are distorted through the Media to what can be credible in favour of the government. It is more visible now that the "Modern British governments have at their command a squad of professional propagandists in their Civil Servant press officers; they enjoy guaranteed intimacy with the press and broadcasters through the lobby journalists; they have iron control over the flow of official information through the rules laid down in the Officials Secrets Acts' (M. Cockerell , P. Hennessy and D. Walker, 1984, p.116). Media and politicians both work as a team to cover up stories, for instance in 2007 Wikileaks released a video of U.S soldiers shooting Iraq civilians, Bradley Manning was arresting for leaking information's, however, in argument to this, I believe the public are entitled to such atrocities occurring by the West , this is clear proof of governments power over the Media and the cover ups. Although Media want to present a united view of the government, the Media are powerless to the extent to which they are able to expose the government. The government have been using the Media as a propaganda bullet for a century now, and are still able to do so, the obvious point is that the Media is a profit seeking business, therefore their aim is not to be powerful or influential, their aim is to make a profit out of their business.

It is credible to say that the media was more influential decades ago then it is now. The Media was more partisan and patron to politics back then due to factors such as careers in journalism within parliament. Politics is now a full time career for many MP's, therefore this shows how MP's careers are focused around building a career based on popularity. However, provided the politicians eagerness to please the media, It is also important to note that "just because the parties seek to body-swerve past the media as they seek to communicate directly with voters, this does not mean that the media can therefore be discounted when analysing the effectiveness of political marketing strategies and tactics" (Savigny and Temple, 2010, p.271-2), we can see here how the Media are never to powerful over politics, simply because a scandal and story may be a headline for a week, however it will eventually become old news, people will forget, and there will be a new day with a new headline. The Media will always be a corporation, it is a profit seeking business and to end with, "the final political decision rests with the people" (M. Cockerell , P. Hennessy, D. Walker, 1984, p.144). The Media does not have too much political power, simply because the government have ultimate power in dictating the Media.

Bibliography

(author-anon), (date-anon) "1986/7 ZIRCON, Chapter 5 Available at: "(Assessed at 9th March 2012)
D. Wring & R. Mortimore & S. Atkinson, 2011 "Political Communication in Britain, the Leader Debates, the Campaign and the Media in the 2010 General Election"
J. Seaton & B. Pimlott, 1987 "The Media in British Politics"
M. Cockerell, 1988 "Live from Number 10: the Inside story of Prime Ministers and Television"
M. Cockerell & P. Hennessy & D.Walker 1984 "Sources Close to the Prime Minister: Inside the hidden World of the News Manipulators"
M. Emery, 2012 "Media Power and Media Control" Available at: (Assessed at 9th March 2012)
R.Negrine, 1989 "Politics and the Mass Media in Britain"
R. Rose, 2001 "The Prime Minister in a Shrinking World"
PressTV, 2012,"CNN silences Iran war-skeptical soldier" Available at: (Assessed at 17th March 2012)
Ogilvy & M. India, 2005 "The power of media content" Available at: (Assessed at 9th March 2012)